The Meaning Of The Bible

[Owlswing]

 No, there have been a number of Christians both capable of thought, and lovely people. Anchorman and Gonnagle spring to mind. Also given most of my family are practising Christians, including me sainted mother, I don't find this sort of generalisation useful.

OK! Sorry. but it seems that there are very few comments that I make that you find acceptable for one reason or another, usually, with justification, my mangling of the English language..

On the other side of the coin I find few if any of the comments made by the Christians on here to be acceptable either.

I should also, perhaps, point out that my comments are addressed specifically to posters on this Forum and not to members of your family whom I didn't realise read the posts here.

I have had comments made about my religious beliefs that belong back in the Burning Times and no-one sees fit to complain about that! Except Ippy if I remember rightly.

I'm truly sorry if these comments offend but I can only say that they were only ever directed at my detractors, my detractors who seem to still live as if during the Burning Times, and find it easy to show contempt for my beliefs while complaining about my contempt for theirs.

I do, however, have the distinct advantage on my side of the argument in that I was brought up High Church Anglican (I doubt if any of my Christian detractors have ever been Pagan) by a father who strongly believed in the tenet of 'Spare the rod and spoil the child', I once got a thrashing because I made a mistake in saying the Lord's prayer at age 6 or 7.

As to my criticism of Christians, I wear a ring with a pentacle motif and have lost count of the times I have been accosted and harangued about being a witch (which is totally legal) in the kind of strident tones, and at the volume of a heavy metal concert, asking if , as a witch, I really do eat Christian babies and that I should be burnt at a stake in Hyde Park, all this, usually, by people wearing the crucifix.

I hope that, as a result of the above, you would consider I have a reason to be a bit touchy about anti pagan/witch comments.

Owlswing

)O(

 

[Gordon]

Come on Gordon, you know as well as I, it is repeatedly shown on this forum, that Christians are incapable of thinking without a Bible to hand to search for answers! Usually bloody silly ones, but that just about describes all Christians!

Init!

Nope - tarring all Christians with the unpleasant views expressed by just some of them, and probably a minority, is simply unfounded and is a sweeping generalisation. 

[Owlswing]

Nope - tarring all Christians with the unpleasant views expressed by just some of them, and probably a minority is simply unfounded and is a sweeping generalisation.

OK OK I get the message! Loud and clear!

Owlswing!

[Spud]

You could try forgiveness: I understand that many Christians are quite keen on forgiveness.

Made a lot easier if the person makes the effort to repair the damage. Suppose someone, suppose its your son, takes your credit card and runs up a debt on it. You would forgive him, but you'd also make him do something to earn at least some of the debt back.

Thank God (pun intended) that I'm not a Christian if this is an example of how some (but not all) Christians think.

Sorry - I don't really understand Outrider's post 364, and how making someone work to pay for stolen goods is more dehumanising than locking someone up. Maybe it is, I don't see his point about 'other animals'.

[Gordon]

Made a lot easier if the person makes the effort to repair the damage. Suppose someone, suppose its your son, takes your credit card and runs up a debt on it. You would forgive him, but you'd also make him do something to earn at least some of the debt back.

Making an attempt at reparation is always welcome but we (Mrs G and I), and I suspect other parents of older/adult children might agree with us, feel that supporting our children so that they learn from their mistakes is more important than 'pay back': we don't stop loving and supporting our children just because they make mistakes or act like idiots.

Sorry - I don't really understand Outrider's post 364, and how making someone work to pay for stolen goods is more dehumanising than locking someone up. Maybe it is, I don't see his point about 'other animals'.

There is no doubt that us humans are animals, but your use of the term had unpleasant pejorative overtones. Us humans can, and do, own animals as property but that is rather different from us owning our fellow humans as property which, if I recall, was the point that Outrider was flagging up to you, and which you seem to be having difficulty in understanding - it is possible for people to make reparations without them also becoming the property of those they are compensating.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

No, there have been a number of Christians both capable of thought, and lovely people. Anchorman and Gonnagle spring to mind. Also given most of my family are practising Christians, including me sainted mother, I don't find this sort of generalisation useful.

I agree with the sentiment of course, but I have to say too that it’s been a disappointment to me that the Christians (and other theists for that matter) who do post here and who claim their beliefs to be objectively true for me too have been unable to justify the claim – whether with arguments at all or with arguments that aren’t plainly false. I had hoped when Theoretical Sceptic joined for something better, but he went batshit crazy pretty fast and seems to have flared out shortly afterwards.

I’ve asked this before, but where are the Christians with the wit and ammunition to mount cogent arguments for me to take their beliefs seriously?       

[Outrider]

But if someone can't make restitution, what should be done?

Maybe look at why we're in a situation where people in society can't make reparations and see if, and how, that contributed to the situation where they need to, perhaps?

Let him off without punishment?

Again, seeing punishment as somehow the solution is missing the point that punishment isn't a very effective tool - re-education, rehabilitation, these work, but punishment does not.

Agreed, but if they reduce themselves to the level of an animal by stealing, then they can expect to be treated like one.

Animals can't steal, they have no concept of ownership.  We reduce people to the level of just animals when we take away their capacity to be something more than animals; such as when we deny them the self-direction of freedom and make them someone else's property.

O.

[ippy]

NS,

I agree with the sentiment of course, but I have to say too that it’s been a disappointment to me that the Christians (and other theists for that matter) who do post here and who claim their beliefs to be objectively true for me too have been unable to justify the claim –whether with arguments at all or with arguments that aren’t plainly false. I had hoped when Theoretical Sceptic joined for something better, but he went batshit crazy pretty fast and seems to have flared out shortly afterwards.

I’ve asked this before, but where are the Christians with the wit and ammunition to mount cogent arguments for me to take their beliefs seriously?       

Well said Blue, my sentiments entirely!

Most people take the weirdest of facts seriously when backed up with a sufficient quality of evidence, something that seems to have escaped the attention of all the religious communities, well right up till now anyway.

ippy.     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I agree with the sentiment of course, but I have to say too that it’s been a disappointment to me that the Christians (and other theists for that matter) who do post here and who claim their beliefs to be objectively true for me too have been unable to justify the claim – whether with arguments at all or with arguments that aren’t plainly false. I had hoped when Theoretical Sceptic joined for something better, but he went batshit crazy pretty fast and seems to have flared out shortly afterwards.

I’ve asked this before, but where are the Christians with the wit and ammunition to mount cogent arguments for me to take their beliefs seriously?       

I get bored with this simplistic idea that you treat Christians as single mass of people. it's the same with Vlad's fatuous talking about atheists as if they are all the same. I know people who are Christian who would never make the claim of objective truth in the way you use here so that's a strawman for them.

 I also find the 'I agree with the sentiment' with the but added feels like an attempt to just ignore a lazy and incorrect generalisation by Owlswing to then make a slightly more nuanced one based on the aforementioned strawman.  Anyone who is Christian on here is not there to be a performing seal for your demand.

[Nearly Sane]

Well said Blue, my sentiments entirely!

Most people take the weirdest of facts seriously when backed up with a sufficient quality of evidence, something that seems to have escaped the attention of all the religious communities, well right up till now anyway.

ippy.   

Simplistic generalisation

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I get bored with this simplistic idea that you treat Christians as single mass of people.

I expressly referred only to the Christians who post here. Here in fact: “…that the Christians (and other theists for that matter) who do post here…”. Perhaps you missed that?

…it's the same with Vlad's fatuous talking about atheists as if they are all the same.

No it isn’t. Vlad refers to “atheists” as a group; I referred only the Christians (and to other theists) who post here.

I know people who are Christian who would never make the claim of objective truth in the way you use here so that's a strawman for them.

I expressly did no such thing by referring only to those who do. Here in fact: “…and who claim their beliefs to be objectively true for me too”. Why are you misrepresenting me?

I also find the 'I agree with the sentiment' with the but added feels like an attempt to just ignore a lazy and incorrect generalisation by Owlswing to then make a slightly more nuanced one based on the aforementioned strawman.

So just to be clear: I state clearly that I agree that generalising like this is wrong, and you decide that what meant instead is that I’m actually ignoring the wrongness of generalisation in order to attempting a “slightly more nuanced” attempt at the same thing, even though I expressly did no generalise at all. Is that right?

Anyone who is Christian on here is not there to be a performing seal for your demand.

Have you been on Vlad’s strawmanning 101 course or something? Again, I made no reference to “Christians on here” as a whole – I expressly said something other than that. Did you really miss that?

And yes, if such people assert by right that their faith beliefs should be imposed on me and mine in various ways then damn right they should be “performing seals” if by that you mean they should argue their case rather than just presume it.     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I expressly referred only to the Christians who post here. Here in fact: “…that the Christians (and other theists for that matter) who do post here…”. Perhaps you missed that?

No it isn’t. Vlad refers to “atheists” as a group; I referred only the Christians (and to other theists) who post here.

I expressly did no such thing by referring only to those who do. Here in fact: “…and who claim their beliefs to be objectively true for me too”. Why are you misrepresenting me?

So just to be clear: I state clearly that I agree that generalising like this is wrong, and you decide that what meant instead is that I’m actually ignoring the wrongness of generalisation in order to attempting a “slightly more nuanced” attempt at the same thing, even though I expressly did no generalise at all. Is that right?

Have you been on Vlad’s strawmanning 101 course or something? Again, I made no reference to “Christians on here” as a whole – I expressly said something other than that. Did you really miss that?

And yes, if such people assert by right that their faith beliefs should be imposed on me and mine in various ways then damn right they should be “performing seals” if by that you mean they should argue their case rather than just presume it.   

. Yep, I read you wrongly, my apologies.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

. Yep, I read you wrongly, my apologies.

That's gracious of you - thank you. No harm done, so on we go....

[Spud]

Making an attempt at reparation is always welcome but we (Mrs G and I), and I suspect other parents of older/adult children might agree with us, feel that supporting our children so that they learn from their mistakes is more important than 'pay back': we don't stop loving and supporting our children just because they make mistakes or act like idiots.


There is no doubt that us humans are animals, but your use of the term had unpleasant pejorative overtones. Us humans can, and do, own animals as property but that is rather different from us owning our fellow humans as property which, if I recall, was the point that Outrider was flagging up to you, and which you seem to be having difficulty in understanding - it is possible for people to make reparations without them also becoming the property of those they are compensating.

Both points taken. it seems that the way I worded my points was offensive, maybe because there is truth in them and I don't know how to unoffensivize that? For example, is it the case that turning to crime makes us more animal-like, or not? Also, do we discipline children or not?

[Gordon]

Both points taken. it seems that the way I worded my points was offensive, maybe because there is truth in them and I don't know how to unoffensivize that?

It isn't a matter of 'truth' though, but opinion: it seems very clear that your opinion is that you think there are some circumstances where it is acceptable for some people to own other people. Moreover, it also seems you regard people who are enslaved as having a status equivalent to species of animals that are exploited by humans, such as cattle: I find that position to be quite offensive no matter how you phrase it. 

For example, is it the case that turning to crime makes us more animal-like, or not? Also, do we discipline children or not?

I'd have thought that criminal behaviour, as in people exploiting other people purely for gain, as opposed to survival, was a particularly human trait that society generally regards as being counter-productive, hence we have social norms that discourage such exploitation. To leap from this, as you do, to 'disciplining' children seems like a leap too far for me, since it seems you regard children being corrected for, say, a lack of consideration or care as being somehow equivalent to criminal behaviour by adults.

You do seem awfully keen on punishing people, including children.   

[Outrider]

Both points taken. it seems that the way I worded my points was offensive, maybe because there is truth in them and I don't know how to unoffensivize that?

For me it's not the way you phrased it, I don't think, it's that you seem to think there's a justification for owning people - we're both accepting that some degree of punishment for wrongdoing is likely to be a part of any society, we're both accepting that some degree of reparations is also likely to be a part, and realistically I think we'd both agree that some degree of both of those would be necessary to make a society work. We might quibble over the degree of one or the other, or the balance between them, but we don't appear to have any deep-seated moral objection to either of those concepts.

Owning people, though, treating people as though they could be considered as property, isn't something I can accept as justifiable, regardless of their nature.  There are people who don't think the death penalty can ever be supported - I'm not one of them, but I understand the argument - and I stand in a similar place on slavery and it seems as though you don't.  If I'm not mischaracterising it, then that's where our disagreement lies, not in how you've chosen to phrase it.

For example, is it the case that turning to crime makes us more animal-like, or not?

No, crime and criminality require a moral conscience which is something we generally consider beyond the rest of the animal kingdom, it's one of the things that sets us apart.  Animals can't commit crimes, how can committing a crime make us more animal-like?  Forgoing our moral conscience and acting more animalistic can make us behave criminally, but it doesn't work the other way around.

Also, do we discipline children or not?

Rending people to the level of property is not 'discipline'.

O.

[jeremyp]

Made a lot easier if the person makes the effort to repair the damage. Suppose someone, suppose its your son, takes your credit card and runs up a debt on it. You would forgive him, but you'd also make him do something to earn at least some of the debt back.
Sorry - I don't really understand Outrider's post 364, and how making someone work to pay for stolen goods is more dehumanising than locking someone up. Maybe it is, I don't see his point about 'other animals'.

There's a difference between making them pay and selling them into slavery.

[Spud]

Well, firstly, neither of those is actually a particularly effective means of rehabilitation,

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-35936290
 

but to an extent that's beside the point; the point is that neither of them requires people to be classified as property and owned in order to implement.  I ask again, because I note that you didn't directly address the question the last time, do you not have a problem with the idea of people being reduced to a commodity to be traded?

O.

I think Exodus 22:3 shows that it was the slave's labour that was owned (in that context, until he paid for the theft) not the person.

[Spud]

It isn't a matter of 'truth' though, but opinion: it seems very clear that your opinion is that you think there are some circumstances where it is acceptable for some people to own other people.

Hi Gordon, my aim here has been to try and defend the Bible. Leviticus 25:44 is the problematic verse, which states an Israelite could own a foreigner. Was thinking about this this morning, having had a break from it.

We know that Israelites were only allowed to become 'slaves' (servants, really) of fellow countrymen temporarily. This doesn't seem to be a problem, morally, given the rules on them being treated fairly and being released after a certain time.

Regarding Leviticus 25:44, I think I may have said this before but not explained fully: there was an underlying issue which may explain why such a law existed. The land was to be owned only by male descendants of Jacob, since God had promised Jacob that his descendants would inherit the land. The only options for a foreigner were to purchase a house in a walled city, if he had money or was employed as a hired worker, or to become attached to an Israelite as a bondservant. Given the provisions made for the latter in the law, the word slave isn't appropriate to describe this status.

This is open to misinterpretation, of course, as was the case when white Americans believed their land was given to them only. In the case of Israel, they had been freed from oppressive slavery and were intended as a blessing for all the nations.

[Roses]

Far from Israel being a blessing for all nations, it has been more like a curse, imo.

[Nearly Sane]

Far from Israel being a blessing for all nations, it has been more like a curse, imo.

I know you don't mean it to be read as anti semitic because I know you are not  but your post could be read that way.

[Roses]

I know you don't mean it to be read as anti semitic because I know you are not  but your post could be read that way.

I have no problem with Jews but plenty with Israel.

[Nearly Sane]

I have no problem with Jews but plenty with Israel.

Phrasing a statement that Israel is a curse though echoes, even if not deliberately, deeply anti semitic rhetoric.

[Roses]

Phrasing a statement that Israel is a curse though echoes, even if not deliberately, deeply anti semitic rhetoric.

I don't see it that way. Apparently there are many Jews who don't support the stance Israel has taken over the years since it came into being.

[jeremyp]

I don't see it that way. Apparently there are many Jews who don't support the stance Israel has taken over the years since it came into being.

But in the context of this thread which is about the Bible, "Israel" can easily be taken as a synonym for Judaism or all Jews. If you are criticising the modern state of Israel or even the ancient kingdom that existed in the early part of the first millennium BCE, that's fine, but a bit of a non sequitur on this thread.